Cervical length at 31–34 weeks of gestation: transvaginal vs. transperineal ultrasonographic approach
-
Ioannis Tsakiridis
,
Themistoklis Dagklis
Abstract
Objectives
To investigate the correlation between transperineal (TP) and transvaginal (TV) ultrasonography in the measurement of cervical length (CL) in the third trimester of pregnancy.
Methods
In this prospective study, CL measurements were conducted in women between 31 and 34 weeks of gestation by both the TP and TV approaches. A comparison of the measurements was made between the two techniques. The Pearson correlation coefficient, the paired samples t-test and Bland-Altman plot were used.
Results
In total, 240 women participated in the study. The CL was successfully measured transvaginally in all cases and transperineally in 229 (95.4%) of the cases. The mean TV CL was 32.8 ± 8.2 mm and the mean TP CL was 32.5 ± 8.1 mm. In the 229 cases with paired measurements, the Pearson correlation coefficient was 0.964. No significant differences in mean CL were identified between the two methods (t = 1.805; P = 0.072). In the Bland-Altman plot, the difference between the paired means was 0.26 mm and the 95% tolerance interval for any given paired observation (TV CL–TP CL) was −4.05 to 4.57 mm.
Conclusion
The findings of this study suggest that at 31–34 weeks of gestation the cervix can be visualized adequately by both the TV and TP sonography in about 95% of cases. The TP CL measurements demonstrate a close correlation with the TV measurements. TP ultrasound is a feasible alternative, especially in cases where the use of the vaginal transducer should be minimized or is not acceptable by women.
Author contributions: Apostolos Athanasiadis developed the original idea for the study, participated in the implementation and recruited patients. Ioannis Tsakiridis designed, coordinated, implemented the project, evaluated the results and submitted the article. Themistoklis Dagklis coordinated recruitment, interviewed patients and recorded patient data. Apostolos Mamopoulos supervised sample extraction and cooperated in result analysis. Angeliki Gerede participated in statistical analysis and also supervised the manuscript development. All the authors have accepted responsibility for the entire content of this submitted manuscript and approved submission.
Research funding: None declared.
Employment or leadership: None declared.
Honorarium: None declared.
Competing interests: The funding organization(s) played no role in the study design; in the collection, analysis, and interpretation of data; in the writing of the report; or in the decision to submit the report for publication.
References
1. Copper RL, Goldenberg RL, Creasy RK, DuBard MB, Davis RO, Entman SS, et al. A multicenter study of preterm birth weight and gestational age-specific neonatal mortality. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1993;168:78–84.10.1016/S0002-9378(12)90889-3Search in Google Scholar
2. Romero R, Nicolaides K, Conde-Agudelo A, Tabor A, O’Brien JM, Cetingoz E, et al. Vaginal progesterone in women with an asymptomatic sonographic short cervix in the midtrimester decreases preterm delivery and neonatal morbidity: a systematic review and metaanalysis of individual patient data. Am J Obstet Gynecol 2012;206:124.e1–19.10.1016/j.ajog.2011.12.003Search in Google Scholar
3. Jackson GM, Ludmir J, Bader TJ. The accuracy of digital examination and ultrasound in the evaluation of cervical length. Obstet Gynecol 1992;79:214–8.Search in Google Scholar
4. Berghella V, Tolosa JE, Kuhlman K, Weiner S, Bolognese RJ, Wapner RJ. Cervical ultrasonography compared with manual examination as a predictor of preterm delivery. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1997;177:723–30.10.1016/S0002-9378(97)70259-XSearch in Google Scholar
5. Önderoglu LS. Digital examination and transperineal ultrasonographic measurement of cervical length to assess risk of preterm delivery. Int J Gynecol Obstet 1997;59:223–8.10.1016/S0020-7292(97)00211-7Search in Google Scholar
6. Iams JD, Goldenberg RL, Meis PJ, Mercer BM, Moawad A, Das A, et al. The length of the cervix and the risk of spontaneous premature delivery. N Engl J Med 1996;334:567–73.10.1056/NEJM199602293340904Search in Google Scholar PubMed
7. To MS, Skentou C, Chan C, Zagaliki A, Nicolaides KH. Cervical assessment at the routine 23-week scan: standardizing techniques. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2001;17:217–9.10.1046/j.1469-0705.2001.00369.xSearch in Google Scholar PubMed
8. Mahony BS, Nyberg DA, Luthy DA, Hirsch JH, Hickok DE, Petty CN. Translabial ultrasound of the third-trimester uterine cervix: correlation with digital examination. J Ultrasound Med 1990;9:717–23.10.7863/jum.1990.9.12.717Search in Google Scholar PubMed
9. Berghella V, Baxter JK, Hendrix NW. Cervical assessment by ultrasound for preventing preterm delivery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013:CD007235.10.1002/14651858.CD007235.pub3Search in Google Scholar PubMed PubMed Central
10. Gauthier T, Marin B, Garuchet-Bigot A, Kanoun D, Catalan C, Caly H, et al. Transperineal versus transvaginal ultrasound cervical length measurement and preterm labor. Arch Gynecol Obstet 2014;290:465–9.10.1007/s00404-014-3229-1Search in Google Scholar PubMed
11. Lim K, Butt K, Crane JM. No. 257-Ultrasonographic cervical length assessment in predicting preterm birth in singleton pregnancies. J Obstet Gynaecol Canada 2018;40:e151–64.10.1016/j.jogc.2017.11.016Search in Google Scholar PubMed
12. Yazici G, Yildiz A, Tiras MB, Arslan M, Kanik A, Oz U. Comparison of transperineal and transvaginal sonography in predicting preterm delivery. J Clin Ultrasound 2004;32:225–30.10.1002/jcu.20027Search in Google Scholar
13. Volumenie JL, Luton D, De Spirlet M, Sibony O, Blot P, Oury JF. Ultrasonographic cervical length measurement is not a better predictor of preterm delivery than digital examination in a population of patients with idiopathic preterm labor. Eur J Obstet Gynecol Reprod Biol 2004;117:33–7.10.1016/j.ejogrb.2004.02.029Search in Google Scholar
14. Ozdemir I, Demirci F, Yucel O. Transperineal versus transvaginal ultrasonographic evaluation of the cervix at each trimester in normal pregnant women. Aust New Zeal J Obstet Gynaecol 2005;45:191–4.10.1111/j.1479-828X.2005.00378.xSearch in Google Scholar
15. Meijer-Hoogeveen M, Stoutenbeek P, Visser GHA. Methods of sonographic cervical length measurement in pregnancy: a review of the literature. J Matern Neo Med 2006;19:755–62.10.1080/14767050600852601Search in Google Scholar
16. Kurtzman JT, Goldsmith LJ, Gall SA, Spinnato JA. Transvaginal versus transperineal ultrasonography: a blinded comparison in the assessment of cervical length at midgestation. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1998;179:852–7.10.1016/S0002-9378(98)70177-2Search in Google Scholar
17. ISUOG. ISUOG Practice Guidelines: performance of first-trimester fetal ultrasound scan. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2013;41:102–13.10.1002/uog.12342Search in Google Scholar
18. Kagan KO, Sonek J. How to measure cervical length. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2015;45:358–62.10.1002/uog.14742Search in Google Scholar
19. Berghella V, Kuhlman K, Weiner S, Texeira L, Wapner RJ. Cervical funneling: sonographic criteria predictive of preterm delivery. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 1997;10:161–6.10.1046/j.1469-0705.1997.10030161.xSearch in Google Scholar
20. Timor-Tritsch IE, Boozarjomehri F, Masakowski Y, Monteagudo A, Chao CR. Can a “snapshot” sagittal view of the cervix by transvaginal ultrasonography predict active preterm labor? Am J Obstet Gynecol 1996;174:990–5.10.1016/S0002-9378(96)70338-1Search in Google Scholar
21. Martin Bland J, Altman D. Statistical methods for assessing agreement between two methods of clinical measurement. Lancet 1986;327:307–10.10.1016/S0140-6736(86)90837-8Search in Google Scholar
22. Cicero S, Skentou C, Souka A, To MS, Nicolaides KH. Cervical length at 22–24 weeks of gestation: comparison of transvaginal and transperineal-translabial ultrasonography. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2001;17:335–40.10.1046/j.1469-0705.2001.00345.xSearch in Google Scholar
23. Carr DB, Smith K, Parsons L, Chansky K, Shields LE. Ultrasonography for cervical length measurement: agreement between transvaginal and translabial techniques. Obstet Gynecol 2000;96:554–8.10.1097/00006250-200010000-00014Search in Google Scholar
24. Hertzberg BS, Livingston E, DeLong DM, McNally PJ, Fazekas CK, Kliewer MA. Ultrasonographic evaluation of the cervix: transperineal versus endovaginal imaging. J Ultrasound Med 2001;20:1071–8.10.7863/jum.2001.20.10.1071Search in Google Scholar
25. Owen J, Neely C, Northen A. Transperineal versus endovaginal ultrasonographic examination of the cervix in the midtrimester: a blinded comparison. Am J Obstet Gynecol 1999;181: 780–3.10.1016/S0002-9378(99)70300-5Search in Google Scholar
26. Hertzberg BS, Kliewer MA, Baumeister LA, McNally PB, Fazekas CK. Optimizing transperineal sonographic imaging of the cervix: the hip elevation technique. J Ultrasound Med 1994;13:933–6.10.7863/jum.1994.13.12.933Search in Google Scholar PubMed
27. Eggebø TM, Gjessing LK, Heien C, Smedvig E, Økland I, Romundstad P, et al. Prediction of labor and delivery by transperineal ultrasound in pregnancies with prelabor rupture of membranes at term. Ultrasound Obstet Gynecol 2006;27: 387–91.10.1002/uog.2744Search in Google Scholar PubMed
©2019 Walter de Gruyter GmbH, Berlin/Boston
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Review
- The role of complement in preterm birth and prematurity
- Original Articles – Obstetrics
- Variation in C-reactive protein at 1 month post-partum by etiology of preterm birth: selective identification of those at risk for both poor pregnancy outcome and future health complications
- Procedure related risk of premature delivery and fetal growth reduction following amniocentesis, transcervical and transabdominal chorionic villus sampling: a retrospective study
- Cervical length at 31–34 weeks of gestation: transvaginal vs. transperineal ultrasonographic approach
- The origin of amniotic fluid monocytes/macrophages in women with intra-amniotic inflammation or infection
- Placental elasticity assessment by point shear wave elastography in pregnancies with intrauterine growth restriction
- A 17-years analysis of terminations of pregnancy ≥14 weeks of gestation in a German level 1 perinatal center
- Simulation of an impacted fetal head extraction during cesarean section: description of the creation and evaluation of a new training program
- Academic tweeting in #ObGyn. Where do we stand?
- Original Articles – Fetus
- Fetal heart examination at the time of 13 weeks scan: a 5 years’ prospective study
- Comparison of fetal cardiac functions between small-for-gestational age fetuses and late-onset growth-restricted fetuses
- Original Article – Newborn
- Protocols for early discharging of premature infants: an empirical assessment on safety and savings
- Letter to the Editor
- Maternal blood pressure levels prepartum correlate with neonatal birth weight in preeclampsia
Articles in the same Issue
- Frontmatter
- Review
- The role of complement in preterm birth and prematurity
- Original Articles – Obstetrics
- Variation in C-reactive protein at 1 month post-partum by etiology of preterm birth: selective identification of those at risk for both poor pregnancy outcome and future health complications
- Procedure related risk of premature delivery and fetal growth reduction following amniocentesis, transcervical and transabdominal chorionic villus sampling: a retrospective study
- Cervical length at 31–34 weeks of gestation: transvaginal vs. transperineal ultrasonographic approach
- The origin of amniotic fluid monocytes/macrophages in women with intra-amniotic inflammation or infection
- Placental elasticity assessment by point shear wave elastography in pregnancies with intrauterine growth restriction
- A 17-years analysis of terminations of pregnancy ≥14 weeks of gestation in a German level 1 perinatal center
- Simulation of an impacted fetal head extraction during cesarean section: description of the creation and evaluation of a new training program
- Academic tweeting in #ObGyn. Where do we stand?
- Original Articles – Fetus
- Fetal heart examination at the time of 13 weeks scan: a 5 years’ prospective study
- Comparison of fetal cardiac functions between small-for-gestational age fetuses and late-onset growth-restricted fetuses
- Original Article – Newborn
- Protocols for early discharging of premature infants: an empirical assessment on safety and savings
- Letter to the Editor
- Maternal blood pressure levels prepartum correlate with neonatal birth weight in preeclampsia
